The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to cases involving grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. It cannot be invoked to reappreciate evidence or substitute its conclusions for those reached by the lower tribunals.

Headnote:
DEFECTIVE MICROWAVE OVEN - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 13(1)(C), 21(B) - LIABILITY OF SELLER - EXPERT OPINION - TERMS IN CASH MEMO - REPLACEMENT OF PRODUCT - JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SCOPE AND AMBIT - CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent purchased a Microwave Oven from the petitioner in December 2006. The Microwave Oven stopped functioning in March 2007, and despite repeated complaints, the petitioner failed to repair or replace the defective product. The respondent filed a consumer complaint seeking a refund, compensation, and replacement of the Microwave Oven.
Finding of the Court:

The District Forum and the State Commission found that the Microwave Oven was defective and directed the petitioner to refund the purchase price, pay compensation, and replace the product. The petitioner challenged the orders before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the tribunals erred in finding that the Microwave Oven was defective without obtaining an expert opinion under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. Whether the terms in the cash memo excluded the petitioner from any liability for defects in the product. 3. Whether the respondent was entitled to a replacement of the product in the absence of a specific pleading regarding warranty in the complaint. 4. Whether the High Court could interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the concurrent findings of fact by the tribunals.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioner failed to plead before the subordinate tribunals that the defect in the product required expert analysis or testing under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Raising this issue at a belated stage was not permissible. 2. The terms in the cash memo excluding the petitioner's liability for defects in the product were void as they contravened statutory provisions. A party cannot contract out of a statutory liability. 3. The tribunals' concurrent findings that the product was defective and required replacement were based on the admitted facts of the case and could not be challenged. 4. The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to cases involving grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. It cannot be invoked to reappreciate evidence or substitute its conclusions for those reached by the lower tribunals.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petitioner's application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, holding that the petitioner failed to make out a case for invoking its supervisory jurisdiction. The concurrent findings of fact by the tribunals were upheld.

JUDGMENT

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. THIS is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the order dated 6th May, 2010 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in S.C. Case No. FA/462/2009 confirming the order No. 13 dated 29th October, 2009 passed by the learned Calcutta District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Unit I (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in C.D.F. Unit I case No. 115/2008.

2. THE factual matrix giving rise to the instant litigation is as follows : THE respondent no. 1/complainant (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) being attracted by an advertisement issued by the petitioner/opposite party no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) and intending to purchase a Microwave Oven having grill, baking and toast facilities, on or about 23.12.2006, visited the office/showroom of the petitioner. THE sales personnel of the petitioner persuaded the respondent and his family members to buy the Microwave Oven of Videocon having model no. VC3300. They assured the respondent that after sales service would be rendered by Videocon Industry Limited, the proforma respondent herein, through its local service centres and the same was promised to be of the highest standard. THE respondent accordingly paid a consolidated price of Rs. 8,300/- and the petitioner issued an invoice being tax credit memo bearing no. AB0898 dated 23.12.1996. THE Microwave Oven was delivered by the petitioner on 23.12.2006 and it worked satisfactorily upto March, 2007 but suddenly stopped functioning thereafter. Complaints were made to the petitioner by the respondent in this regard. Pursuant to such complaints, representatives of the petitioner visited the residence of the respondent and it was reported by their service engineers that the printed circuit bearing (PCB for short) had become dead and that the same required replacement.

However, no steps were taken by the petitioner to repair the said Microwave Oven or replace the same. Finally, in October, 2007, the engineers of the petitioner confirmed that the Microwave Oven was a defective one and the same required a complete replacement.

3. THEREAFTER, on 23rd October, 2007, under a challan dated 16th October, 2007 the petitioner replaced the said Microwave Oven with a new one. Inspite of such replacement, again on and from 24th February, 2008, the new Microwave Oven stopped functioning. This fact was reported by the respondent to the petitioner, but no steps were taken to rectify the fault in the defective machine. Only on one occasion, an engineer of the petitioner examined the replaced Microwave Oven and confirmed that the said Microwave Oven has become defective and he assured the respondent that he would put in a requisition for supplying a new Microwave Oven.

4. THEREAFTER, time and again the respondent approached the petitioner and was assured by the petitioner that they would look into the matter, but no steps were taken. Finally, on 7th March, 2008 one Miss Namita, an employee of the petitioner assured the respondent that on or before 10th March, 2008 the said Microwave Oven would either be repaired or be replaced with a new one. Inspite of such representation no steps were taken to replace the defective Microwave Oven.

The respondent being a consumer of the aforesaid product having purchased the same from the petitioner, on or about 17.04.2008 filed a petition under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1986) against the petitioner and the proforma respondent herein, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs :

a) The petitioner and the proforma respondent herein be directed to refund to the respondent herein the said sum of Rs. 8,300/- (Rupees Eight Thousand and Three Hundred) only together with interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum from the 23rd December, 2006 till the date of eff

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2011 Supreme(Cal) 902

High Court Of Calcutta Joymalya Bagchi, J.Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Limited - AppellantsVsSantosh Kumar Kanodia @ S.K. Kanodia - RespondentsC.O. NO. 158 OF 2011Decided on: July 08, 2011

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

High Court Of Calcutta
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Limited - Appellants
Vs
Santosh Kumar Kanodia @ S.K. Kanodia - Respondents
C.O. NO. 158 OF 2011
Decided on: July 08, 2011